Jump to content

Talk:Privacy International

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

English, Welsh and Scottish scores

[edit]

From what sources have the scores for England and Wales and Scotland been drawn from, they are not mentioned individually under the source.

Unless a source can be found I propose we delete these scores Seriouslythelastnameleft (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any citation given. I promise to get back on this page. --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I notice that the entry for Privacy International in Wikipedia has been replaced with a copyrightt infringement warning.

Please note that Privacy International has given the Wikipedia user permission to use this material for the updated entry. I am not sure how matters should proceed from this point, but I would certainly appreciate the article being reinstated.

Best wishes

Simon Davies Director Privacy International

simon@privacy.org

I've reinstated the page. --bjh21 18:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thanks

[edit]

Many thanks -bjh21. Much appreciated.

SD

Big Brother Awards

[edit]

The Big Brother Awards (and The Winston Awards) needs to be mentioned. 129.241.11.200 12:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed "It should however be noted that Privacy International is not an inpartial organisation, much of the information they distribute is opinionated." This is unnecessary as the piece already stipulates that the organisation is coming from a human rights perspective, and sounds somewhat hostile. Simon Davies

Privacy index

[edit]

The colors of the Privacy index and it's legend are misleadingly out of sync. 213.47.89.126 10:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't match the map either. Colours are definitely wrong. 144.32.128.73 (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"less unflattering"

[edit]

In the paragraph talking about Microsoft and Google. A double-negative? Is there any reason why, if only for clarity's sake, this shouldn't be changed to read "more flattering"? 194.128.66.118 10:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually just gone and made the change. Someone can always revert it if there's a specific reason for the clunky double-negative. 194.128.66.118 10:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New rankings for 07

[edit]

PI have released new rankings.

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-559597

Whoever did them nice tables and the map (or someone else who have done similar things) might have interest in updating :) --Joffeloff (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-559597 - For the link to work copy and paste all of it, including the number bit at the end. Bsrboy 00:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talk • contribs)

Because wikipedia cannot correctly link the URL to PI's 2007 document (I have asked for advice at Template talk:Citation) I have used WebCite to create an archive here: http://www.webcitation.org/5XpxPOdbb
Here is the full cite as suggested by WebCite:
Privacy International. Leading surveillance societies in the EU and the World 2007. 2008-05-15. URL:http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-559597. Accessed: 2008-05-15. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5XpxPOdbb) - World Map, Table and key aspects per country
Full address is Privacy International, 6-8 Amwell Street, Clerkenwell, London EC1R 1UQ UK.
-84user (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User Fullstop gave me this good fix for linking to these kinds of difficult URLs:
  • Rotenberg, Marc, ed. (2007), "Leading surveillance societies in the EU and the World 2006", Privacy and Human Rights 2006, London: Privacy International (this is the 2006 direct link, it seems to be the 2006 edition published in late 2007)
(I commented out the editor for 2007 because I could not find one) The trick is to replace any problem characters with their hexadecimal equivalents. The template does not have an accessdate parameter which could be a problem with websites that change their contents. -84user (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User Fullstop has assisted me further here and suggested I use the editors of the series, like this:
-84user (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive of World Rankings?

[edit]

The article states PI has issued reports since 1997 and gives a table and cite for 2006 (someone has linked 2007 above). I do not doubt this, and would like to see some history on how rankings have changed. I got as far back as 2000, (the internet archive has links to January 1999 but I got connection failures). I gave up digging much further, so if anyone thinks these are useful, here are some links:

URLs ending in phr2005 through to phr2008 result in various server error responses.

List of maps from archive.org's archive of Data Protection map (it changes even when the html page doesn't):

The two accessible February 2007 maps are otherwise bitwise identical with the last, April 2007, map.

Things I noticed:

  • archive.org, while useful, does not always contain all the old pages, and suffers frequent connection failures (and they respond to requests to remove information from the archive)
  • not all web sites archive their own documents reliably
  • PI uses redirects which may change in the future, increasing the importance of reliable archives
  • WebCite looks possibly useful for producing additional archives

-84user (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British English - BBC or Oxford Spelling?

[edit]

I agree that British English spelling is appropriate for this article, but only because the original editor was British.

Furthermore, he started the article with BBC English rather than Oxford English, and this may confuse other British spellers (like me) and also those non-native writers that learnt British-English using translation dictionaries.

The BBC and Oxford spell these words differently as follows:

BBC spelling Oxford spelling
organise organize
organisation organization
publicise publicize

The disadvantage with using BBC spelling is that most dictionaries do not recognize(I am an Oxford speller!) it, in fact only Chambers has it as a variant, while all others that I could find use Oxford spelling exclusively. This extends to all British-English translation dictionaries in my possession (Hamlyn, Garzanti, Larousse, Zanichelli). -84user (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the map is outdated

[edit]

the map shows 2006 data and thus doesn't show new countries added in 2007 and doesn't show new data for example the us should now be in red — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.218.2 (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality in the "PI and public controversy" section

[edit]

so the section titled "PI and public controversy", around what appears to be the second paragraph, about the controversy around the UK national identity card and the London School of Economics report, seems very much slanted against the government's position in its wording, and seems very highly dismissive of their (admittedly possibly ad hominem, but just as possibly relevant) accusation. I know nothing about what actually happened, though, or the political context that might illuminate it, so I am reluctant to mess with it too much. anamedperson (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Privacy International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Privacy International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Privacy International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a review of proposed edits.

[edit]

Hello I’m hoping to get some feedback from the community regarding possible edits to this page. I am currently volunteering at Privacy International and noticed their Wikipedia page hadn’t been updated since around 2012. I’m not a PI employee but I thought it would be prudent to ask for review from the Wikipedia community before inserting my edits. Here is a link to my sandbox: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Michael_Morel/sandbox

My changes are mostly simple updates like correcting the employee count, listing recent publications and activities, and there are a few lines about structural changes to the organization since 2012. This is my first time editing so I’m being extra cautious. If someone has a chance to take a look and give me the go ahead, that would be much appreciated. Thanks for your time.Michael Morel (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsource, probably incorrect or misleading file hidden

[edit]

I have hidden the File:Privacy International 2007 privacy ranking map.png in the article because it is not discussed in the article, and I cannot find anything resembling it at the Privacy International website. The map is apparently based on a ranking of Internet privacy published by Privacy International in 2007, although the current map has been edited and does not fully match that ranking. Also note that the ranking was of Internet privacy, while the word 'Internet' has been omitted in the map description and caption. Donald Albury 18:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Privacy_International&oldid=1209877656"